The real stories from inside the F1 paddock

Briatore and Symonds depart, Renault admits charges

The ING Renault F1 Team has announced that it will not dispute the recent charges made by the FIA concerning the 2008 Singapore Grand Prix. This means that the team is admitting to a breach of Article 151c of the International Sporting Code, that the team “conspired with its driver, Nelson Piquet Jr, to cause a deliberate crash at the 2008 Singapore Grand Prix with the aim of causing the deployment of the safety car to the advantage of its other driver, Fernando Alonso”.

In effect the team has admitted to “fraudulent conduct” as detailed in the relevant article. Flavio Briatore and Pat Symonds have not admitted to the charges, but they have little defence possible. This obviously throws the cat amongst the pigeons as the team may be trying to get off the hook with the FIA but may have left itself open for legal actions. All the other teams, for example, were deprived of prize money that Renault claimed, which may have amounted to millions of dollars. There is also the question of gamblers who wagered money on anyone other than Fernando Alonso to win in Singapore last year and lost money as a result. One can speculate that admitting to “fraudulent conduct” might leave those involved open to charges of criminal conspiracy, as Renault has admitted that there was an agreement between two or more persons to engage in fraudulent conduct. Repentance by one or more parties does not affect liability but may reduce a sentence.

If we restrict ourselves to the sporting questions raised by the statement, it is clear that ING Renault F1 (which is the name used by Renault F1 Ltd, a wholly-owned division of Renault SA) is throwing itself at the mercy of the FIA World Council. The team’s managing director Flavio Briatore and executive director of engineering, Pat Symonds have left the team, presumably not of their own choice.

This is not a surprise but it does seem to suggest that Renault has decided that it wants to continue in Formula 1 and that it understands that it cannot go down that path unless it sacrifices those responsible. The team will have to face the charges nonetheless, although the company can now blame the whole incident on the two men involved and can ask the FIA to be lenient. The FIA can now justify that plea as it is very clear that the Renault company knew nothing about what was happening and indeed the stunt was undertaken in an effort to pull the wool over the eyes of those in Boulogne-Billancourt, which means that Renault can also argue that it was a victim of the affair as the massive negative publicity in recent days has done the car company no good at all.

Notwithstanding this, the FIA needs to be mindful of precedent as in 1995 Toyota was caught using illegal turbo restrictors on the Catalunya Rally in Spain. The team admitted the situation and argued that it had been done without the knowledge of the team management. In that case the FIA World Council rejected the pleas and banned Toyota from the World Rally Championship for 12 months.

The World Council must also look at the question of whether Fernando Alonso could have been part of the conspiracy to which Renault has now admitted, or whether it was just Briatore, Symonds and Nelson Piquet Jr involved.

The demise of Briatore will be greeted with glee in some quarters in F1 for he has made many enemies during his time in the sport. They are now talking openly. The news of his departure will affect the F1 world in many different ways. Drivers who are managed by him may not wish these arrangements to continue as his involvement, once deemed a positive element for a driver, will now be seen as a major negative. This will free up movement on the driver market considerably. It will also mean that Williams can get back to talking to Renault about an engine deal for 2010. This had previously been blocked by Briatore as he was trying to get Robert Kubica to sign for Renault rather than Williams and was denying the team engines if they did a deal with the Polish driver. The demise of Briatore may also influence the Red Bull Racing decision over 2010 engines as well.

It remains to be seen where the Renault F1 team goes from here, but the fact that the team has acted suggests that its French parent wishes to save the team and rebuild its reputation in F1.

It will also mean that Briatore’s position within FOTA will need to be filled by someone else. He was previously chairman of the FOTA commercial development working group.

The pain may not be over just yet for Briatore. Now that the offences have been admitted by Renault Briatore and Symonds will have to be punished, lest they pop up tomorrow in another team. If Renault is admitting the offences then there is no way that either Briatore or Symonds can argue that it was not planned. And all previous denials are exposed for what they were – deliberate lies.

Telling lies to the FIA is something that is seriously frowned upon by the World Council, at least if one considers what has happened to McLaren in recent times. Briatore and Symonds cannot expect any leniency, even if he is friendly with some of those involved. The knock-on effect of a punishment could result in Flavio falling foul of the British Football League’s “Fit and Proper Persons’ Test” for club directors. Briatore is the part-owner of Queens Park Rangers. According to reports the ‘Fit and Proper’ test might become applicable to Briatore under the rule that nobody can be a director or hold a majority interest in a club if they are “subject to a ban from a sports governing body relating to the administration of their sport”.

Share this:

Like this:

Related

51 Responses

WOW….bombshell !!!!!!!!! sounds to me like piquet was indeed told to crash AND they must have it on tape. I hope Renault doesn’t quit over this. If the FIA was smart they would work with Renault to come to somekind of mutual agreement that would allow the FIA and Renault to save face and simply move on…………. this could turn into a SUPER mess…. I hope the rest of the season doesn’t take a back seat to this…..

Well, the suits a Renault did what they had to do. The mopping up is left to the FIA, although I have to think there will be a couple of lawsuits before it is completely over, not that they will attract much interest.

A great replacement for Briatore would be Dennis (which for French domestic political reasons can easily be re-pronounced dehn nee with an accent on the second syllable).

But seriously, folks, Dennis is down, Briatore is down. And who is still standing? Ans.: Mosley with a hungry and compliant understudy waiting in the wings.

In future, if I were di Montezemolo I would not eat anything that I had not prepared myself.

“Drivers who are managed by him/Flavio may not wish these arrangements to continue as his involvement, once deemed a positive element for a driver, will now be seen as a major negative” – with any luck the drivers will have conduct clauses that will allow them to break with Flavio.

Is there any word on whether the legal ‘blackmail’ cases against the Piquet’s have now been dropped?

Furthermore, do I remember it correctly but was Renault not implicated in the McLaren gate controversy but together with Ferrari escaped sanction free?

I think Joe’s got it mostly right, especially regarding Briatore having to relinquish both his driver contract business and his ownership of the football sqaud.

That said, I do take issue with one specific component of this analysis, the part regarding Pat Symonds.

The suggestion that both Briatore and Symonds “will have to be punished” is at complete odds with the full immunity offered to Symonds by the FIA. If Symonds decides to testify, the only logical conclusion is that no matter how unfair, Symonds will walk free of any punishment, or even reprimand from the FIA.

Further, the above analysis falsely states about both Symonds and Briatore that “all previous denials are exposed for what they were – deliberate lies.”

Certainly Briatore appears to have lied to the FIA investigators, but not Symonds. Yes, Symonds refused to answer questions, but that is not a lie. In fact, the testimony reveals that Symonds specifically told the FIA questioners that he was refusing to answer specifically because he did not want to tell them any lies.

At this point, it would seem very much in Symonds interest to show up and testify fully and completely to all knowledge he has of the affair. Anything he reveals will presumably be covered by the FIA’s offer of imunity.

If anyone knows all the details of this affair, it’s Symonds. Given that immunity is typically rescinded if an immunized participant lies, Symonds must know that he either needs to testify with full honesty, or not at all. His previous refusals to lie indicate that he will not lie now either.

For me, this suggests another massive shoe may be about to drop, because it raises the question of whether Fernando Alonso actually knew of the scheme. Fernando has presumably already testified to the FIA that he knew nothing of this business. If Symonds testifies that Alonso *did* know, then Alonso will be in double trouble. He will be identified as a non-immunized co-conspirator but will also have told direct lies to the FIA investigators.

Since we are aware of no other evidence directly implicating Alonso, his future could well be determined by whether Symonds shows up to testify on Monday. As Symonds is no longer employed by Renault, he has *absolutely no obligation* to appear or testify. Yet if Symonds refuses to show, the FIA will refuse to gift him immunity.

Logic dictates that it is very much in Symonds interest to show, especially now that he and Briatore have both been sacked.

If Symonds does not testify, it will take very little guessing to determine why. His refusal to appear could only indicate that he has been ‘convinced’ (financially) to stay home. In that some involved may find it worth their euros to be assumed guilty than have all doubts removed.

The FIA could not punish Coughlan and Stepney since they were not licence-holders of the FIA, surely Briatore and Symonds are not either.
If I am correct in this, the FIA only have direct power over drivers and teams, not individuals within the teams. Why would Symonds need an amnesty?

The immunity offer for Symonds must be off the table now, surely. With Renault not contesting the charges, the FIA don’t need his testimony. It would be interesting to know why he didn’t take the offer when it was there.

Re: John Gibson @ 14:10: You’re missing the subtleties. James’s blog is like getting information from a political advisor while Joe’s is like listening to an intelligence advisor going over what happens next. Your post reads like someone saying, “this color is yellow, which is why I prefer orange”. If you can’t walk away with insight from this blog then perhaps you’re not reading the words written on the screen.

For Briatore, his time in the sport was always going to read like a Greek tragedy. But he’s finally hung himself, and I don’t think he would change it for the world. Au revoir you slimy man, thanks for your time. We’ve laughed with and at you over the years but you’ll be getting the last laugh floating around the Mediterranean on your yacht with supermodels.

Now Symonds, I don’t think he’ll come out of this as well. Let’s hope he has more goodwill than Briatore. Actually, let’s hope it wasn’t his idea.

First of all : nice comeback line to the person who said they ‘preferred James Allen’s blog’, that told him, ha ha!.

Well well, it looks like Briatore and Symonds are in-it up to their eyeballs. Will Nelson get done as well for coursing a deliberate accident? and will anyone even risk employing him even as a street sweeper driver after this, let alone an F1 driver.

@Tom

Dream on boy, it’s Peter Perfect that’s in the sh*t this time, not Dick Dastardly. So maybe you could direct your bitterness toward Renault from now on?. I don’t think even Ferrari would have told a young second driver to risk his life by crashing to get Schumacher a win. He just parks the car up nice and safe…ish at the Monaco GP to try and get poll, that’s all.

It isn’t just craven paddock folk previously cowed into holding their peace about Flav who are finally opening up – I would expect SuperSmurf himself to start dishing on some of those who would sit in judgment upon him in the very near future.

And Flav’s remarks about Piquet Sr the other day reminded me of an old rule of thumb amongst the detecting classes: a criminal making a false accusation usually bases it on something they have done themselves…

I am just reading the the documents and transcripts that were apparently leaked to the press. The things Flavio and Pat said on the radio really have convinced me the the allegations are true, and although beeing offered immunity, Pat Symonds is as much in it as is Flavio Briatore, maybe even more.

There is part of me that feels just slightly sorry for Piquet junior, I just feel he was being used while in the team. I am not even sure his father was really looking after his well-being as opposed to his F1 interests. Lots of people are saying he should be banned for life from racing. Well Senna deliberately crashed into Prost (another driver) to become World Champion at a time when F1 cars were not as safe as today. Lewis as reigning World Champion lied to authorities (and thereby fixing the results and getting a competitor disqualified) under team orders but continues to drive. He only confessed and dumped the blame on another person when there was no alternative. The only benefit I can see Piquet got was favour to continue to drive for the team despite his poor track record. What he did was wrong, but it was more wrong of the older guys to expect that he will crash on command.

Love the last bit of evidence, the invitation of the Members of the word motor sport council, one has to tick boxes whether one attends the meeting or not, and in addition, the lunch or not. I wonder if it is possible to just attend the lunch, in case one is only into the perks, rather than listening to laywers and taking decisions….

Hubris of the worst kind. Hard to believe but, then again, not. Massa fuel hose error will be looked at in defence to say they could not control that aspect. However Renault controlled the driver crash and let the contingencies take care of themselves. Whether this results in 1st or 5th, who cares? the crime is the act itself. So disappointed, been a Briatore and Symonds fan for a long time. I fear for Alonso, was he complicit? If I were a world champion out of the running and told of a two stop strategy not a three in the context of that race, I would be steaming and crying at the world. I hope there is audio or some evidence to back him up. The fact that there is silence on this matter is interesting. I love Alonso, I hope I am wrong. Carlos Ghosn is either crying into his beer tonight or thanking the lord that he can get the F1 team off the books and return Nissan to some form of profitability.

> Certainly Briatore appears to have lied to the
> FIA investigators, but not Symonds.

Huh? What did I miss? I’ve read only that Renault has decided not to contest the accusation, and that Flav & Pat have quit. No one, to my (shallow) knowledge, has admitted asking Nelsinho to sink his own ship.

(Right?)

(I may be wrong…. A lot of news since last night when last I looked at the blogs.)

Anyway, props to both Saward, and the (ahem) similar blogs, AND ESPECIALLY TO THE BLOG READERS. Comment stacks like this, even when they get silly and snotty, have done an *enormous* amount to increase my enjoyment of the sport after being away for years.

I too prefer JA’s blog – but only when I’m in brain fade mode – I can read it and enjoy it, but very shortly after I forget what I read !
If I want to read a diverse, informative and thought provoking blog, I read Joe.

Pat Symonds – very disappointed. I have always considered him as being straight as a die. I guess you can’t judge a book by its cover, especially if it has been thumbed by the corrupt Flab.

I think you’re quite wrong in assuming Symonds’ immunity offer has been rescinded.

If Symonds accepted the offer of immunity prior to his resignation, (and he still wishes to testify) I cannot and do not believe FIA would dare rescind the immunity offer. In fact, to rescind immunity would be at sharp odds with the FIA’s presumed goal, that of getting to the bottom of this.

The operative question is, does the FIA truly *want* to get to the bottom of this. If they do want the truth, (and that’s an open question) they’ll certainly, definitely want Symonds’ to testify. To rescind immunity would broadcast to the world that the FIA really doesn’t want to get to the bottom of this. That this was simply a vendetta against Briatore.

The FIA may not want the truth, especially if that truth is that Fernando Alonso and any number of other Renault staffers knew of the scheme. Still, if Symonds shows up, they’ll be hard pressed not to ask him who knew.

In any event, whether the FIA, or Max, or Bernie, or Renault, or Briatore, or Alonso want Symonds at the hearing, it is BY FAR in Symonds own best interests to show up and testify.

If he testifies, he will almost certainly be immunized against anything incriminating he describes.

If he does *not* testify, he will very likely be charged and convicted of some sort of ethics violation. The FIA could certainly try to have him banned from employment within the sport. While Symonds could surely appeal such a ban under the UE worker’s rights laws, it would be far better for him to avoid the ethics conviction entirely. Something he can easily and simply acomplish by showing up and testifying truthfully.

As for Symonds future, I suspect it’s could be a lot brighter than it currently appears. There are an unprecedented number of new F1 teams forming up right now, any number of which should be willing to look past this incident in order to acquire a certified winner like Symonds. Yet the only way Symonds will easily be able to take a job with one of these teams will be to receive immunity. He won’t get immunity without testifying.

If Symonds doesn’t show up to testify, I’ll assume Briatore, Alonso, or Renault paid him to stay home. If he does show up to testify, I truly wonder whether the FIA will ask the following simple question.

“Who else knew of the scheme?”

If the FIA doesn’t ask that simple question, it will be clear that this “investigation” was never anything more than a witch hunt to put Briatore’s head on a pike. (not that he didn’t deserve it).

Yes, very good. Why do I prefer James Allen’s blog? Simple. He manages the journalistic skill of picking through the fog to reach at something approximating the truth. This blog, I’m afraid, uses the less honourable skill of writing in ostensibly “neutral” language to convey extremely partial viewpoints that simply aren’t justified. The stewards’ report from Blash, for example, suggests that the evidence against Briatore in particular is extremely thin indeed. It is also quite clear from that report that there is absolutely no case for Fernando Alonso to answer whatsoever, any more than Prince Charles or Homer Simpson. As a skilled journalist, Joe, you ought to know those findings (I am a trained journalist too, incidentally) and be able to convey them accordingly. Our task as reporters (whether on a blog or in more formal print environments) is to get at the truth, no?

With regard to today’s developments, the suspicion I have is that Briatore and Symonds had every intention of fighting the charge but that the Renault company simply didn’t want to take the risk and took their own decision to cave in, hoping to follow the McLaren Australia precedent (expel the “wrong-doers” and win a slap on the wrists), thus leaving Briatore and Symonds in an untenable situation. I think it’s a valid theory. I could be entirely wrong, but the opaque nature of the sport means it’s hard to say.

All I want to see is the truth about this matter. I suspect we won’t now see it, any more than in 1994 (except on this occasion Briatore is royally screwed over rather than the victor of a dubious decision). Instead, I rather think that on Monday Renault will say those “responsible” fell on their swords, the WMSC will be happy with that, and the sport will be allowed to sweep the whole affair under the carpet without ever actually establishing the pattern of events, or satisfactorily attributing guilt.

These are very serious charges; in my view they ought to be subjected to the kind of standard of evidence of a criminal court, not a closed-off WMSC. Emotive innuendo about “what did Fernando know?” and the performative indignation about how this is the most disgraceful act ever to grace F1 (as though the guilt of Briatore and Symonds were now somehow established simply because the latter had resigned their positions) doesn’t really get at that, does it?

I think James does a good job. He started out working with me at Autosport. I actually played a role in hiring him for that job. We were, nonetheless, trained in the same way. He has his way of doing things and I have my way of doing things and they are slightly different. I think we are both trying to achieve the same thing. The laws of libel, which mean that one must prove everything one writes, mean that sometimes one cannot always say what one knows to be true. Sorry if that does not fit in with your Knights of the Round Table School of Journalism, but that is the reality. I do the best I can and if that involves skating around using neutral language to get a point across to those who can read between the lines, then that is what I will do. If you take this as being biased, then there is nothing I can do to help you understand. You are reading the wrong blog. You are entitled to your opinions. Some of them are valid. You are not entitled to insult me, which is what you have done.

James Allen’s blog read’s to me as if it is from Mosley’s press office.
The only person to come out of this sorry affair with any class is Fernando Alonso. He won he race without knowing of Poquet’s deeds and then went on to win in Fiji the next race. It will pain the english sheep-shaggers but they know Alonso would have never agreed to this.
Alonso/Raikkonen/Hamilton are saints compared to XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (I have removed the rest of the sentence as it was libellous – JS. Having said that I agree entirely with the sentiments expressed and in the fullness of time these things will all become public knowledge).

Saward is an experienced pro who cuts of a slice of his perspective to share with us here at no cost. But I’ll never understand people who come to these fora –even a fully amateur one, let a professionally hosted one like this– only to offer a criticism.

Here’s the secret of the internet age: PUBLISHING IS FREE. Google will literally give you a website with limitless, immediate distribution to any interested reader in the world at ZERO cost to you.

So if you think you can do better than Saward, have at it. Do a better job, and then we might believe you when you say he’s not good at it.

Meanwhile, I’m grateful to Joe for sharing these fragments of his insight. It’s OK if other people disagree with him: I’m not asking him to take a poll on what the rest of the world thinks (including me). It’s OK if he changes his mind about something when he writes at a later date. It’s even OK if he loses interest and decides to write exclusively for the venues that put food on his table.

Meanwhile I’m grateful to Joe, and his commenters, and all the similar bloggers.

And when that gratitude fades, I’ll stop reading, with no further comment.

“The only person to come out of this sorry affair with any class is Fernando Alonso.”

Won’t last long when it is fully realised that Alonso’s story after Singapore and what he said to the FIA when they made their enquiries does not match.

James Allens’blog on the FIA invesitgations

“Alonso also said that he left strategy decisions to his engineers and that running a short first stint from outside the top ten was merely an attempt to do something different from the cars around him, which is consistent with Pat Symonds’ attitude to race strategy as he’s articulated it to me in the past.”

The Timesonline has said that after the race Alonso made the following statement…

“Alonso explained that his early pitstop was his idea”

and

“I did think about running a one-stop strategy,” Alonso said, “but all that fuel weight would have been too punishing for the brakes because there are no long straights here to keep them cool. Instead I chose a short, aggressive first stint and just waited to see what would happen.”

The arguments about “my blog’s better than your blog” stuff are specious. In my world, Legard would be dumped next season to go back to football commentating and James Allen would be back with Brundle. Say what you like about James but the Allen/Brundle combo was far superior to what we have now. Let’s hope James has no time for his blog but only because he is commentating next season. I digress.

I think it is simple to say that both the Saward and Allen blogs are *THE* places to go for informative comment, both from the bloggers, and their correspondants. This doesn’t seem to be the place for the fanboys which is fine by me. More power to them both.

Two questions I would like answered – don’t know if you can help or at least have an opinion Joe:

1. Will Pat Symond’s immunity stand and will he be there on the 21st?

2. Will Fernando Alonso be called. Given my utmost admiration for Alonso as the most complete driver on the grid and probably one of the best, he seems to be a little inconsistent in what is being said. Either he knew, or he did not. And he is not stupid.

“In my world, Legard would be dumped next season to go back to football commentating and James Allen would be back with Brundle.”

I think Legard has been a real disappointment. I gave him the benefit of the doubt for the first few races, but he’s not improved at all. That said I personally wouldn’t replace him with Allen. I would rather have David Croft. His commentary on 5Live and “the Red Button” is much better than Legards is and Allens was.

I suspect that Renault and the FIA have already cut a deal. Renault wants no more bad publicity. The FIA and FOM need Renault to stay in F1 (so does Williams and possibly Red Bull). It is clear that the FIA and FOM are conspiring to preserve the market value of Alonso by not pursuing his possible involvement with any great zeal. Is there a Ferrari angle here too?

(I can’t see Ferrari paying $41M to get rid of Kimi but… the 2010 Alonso rumors are strong. Why wouldn’t Ferrari commit publicly to its 2010 driver line up at Monza? Could Renault be forced to trade FA for Kimi in return?)

Considering FOM’s interests and influence, I see the deal that was cut between Renault and the FIA to include a certain amount of silence and sweeping things under the rug. In return Renault will agree to remain in F1 for a few more years. The FIA will announce that it is unfair to punish Renault beyond stripping them of the ill gotten points. FOM will have to recalculate their 2008 Constructors money distribution in fairness to the other teams and Renault will have to surrender the amount back to FOM for redistribution. The FIA will also have to impose some sort of a penalty such as mandatory “public service” acts vis-a-vis some FIA “Safety Initiative” promotion (which will also benefit Renault’s image – wink wink). The FIA will also pronounce that they are satisfied with the purging of guilty parties and that it is unfair for all the little people and hard working engineers to suffer because of the actions of a few. Also the fact of Renault being on probation for the Renault/Mac mini-spygate saga will similarly be treated as satisfied with the purging. Times have changed, F1 cannot lose another engine maker. Renault know this is their bargaining chip and will not pay anything near $100M. Max has got his pound of flesh with Flav’s head on a platter so that mollifies his reputed vindictive rage considerably. It will all be swept under the rug and a big happy face will be placed over everything.

The party line will be… “All is well. Justice has been served. Nothing to look at here. Let’s move along now.”

I blogged first time yesterday and cannot believe all this tripe about who is better than the other re blogs. I agree with CRID, everyone has an opinion, state it, back it up with evidence and let the rest take of itslef. Looking at the substance of the emails that come in on this blog, everyone is fairly sharp. Good. Lets not get sidetracked by critique of someone that puts in the effort to provide the forum and environment in the first place!! There are too many places in the world at the moment where the quality of debate can be best described as “how low can you go” and reality tv ethos. We should be better than that. We should raise the standard, not cater to the lowest common denominator.

So to better things..

Where does everyone stand on Alonso? was he complicit? I see some statements that hedge bets. This is going to get nasty. His logic re his stops in Singa make sense, his comments seem a little fuzzy though. D Hodge nails it, he knew or he didn’t. Obfusication implies knowlege. I really hope I am wrong. Alonso in a decent car could dominate for a long time. Ferrari will be sitting on the sideline awaiting the outcome. The quieter they are and the quieter Alonso is, the more I smell rat.

It is not uncommon for a team to have their drivers on two different strategies. And it is not uncommon for a team to gamble on there being a safety car. Especially at certain circuits like Canada which has had a SC for the last few races. We don’t know what FA knows, or more importantly knew at the time. If Whiting and the FIA knew something they couldn’t prove last December it is not a great stretch that FA also found out some time afterward. Was he complicit on the plot is the question. Even NP Sr. if back pedaling about what FA knew at the time of the race. And he says only that FA should have know before he went out with 15 laps of fuel. But like I said, FA or any of his engineers could have all been told they were gambling on a SC which is a reasonable approach when starting way back on the grid and racing on a street circuit that has little overtaking like Monaco or Valencia. And it remains to be proven that anyone but FB, NP and PS knew about the plan to crash. And even NP Jr. who would love to tank FA’s career isn’t saying that FA knew at the time.

And the sad part is that all this wouldn’t have happened if NP Jr. was a faster driver getting more points for the team and scoring regularly. If that was the case he would have never agreed to such a plan no matter who brought it up. And isn’t it sad that his 2009 contract had a clause that he could be booted if he didn’t score 40% as many points as FA. Imagine negotiating that… His agent and father sitting down and bargaining for a figure of 25% and Renault wanting 50-60% in the contract before they agreed upon 40%. I would be ashamed to have such a paltry figure in my contract. No matter what you may think of LH’s 2007 season, he would never accept scoring 40% as many points as his teammate no matter if he had just won two WDCs on the trot. And I dare say Nico would never have such a clause in his contract either. For Sr. to put that in the contract must only be interpreted as a giant vote of no-confidence in his son. How can NP Jr. ever have a shred of self respect with this kind of thing negotiated? I would say that getting such a low regard from your own father is more psychologically debilitating than any amount of abuse that Flav could ever pour on him.

Whether Flav and PS thought up the plan because it became clear to then that all the help to the team that they could ever expect from NP was a few crumbs and some seriously bent cars, or whether NP thought it up because it was something he could offer the team…. well it is all a pretty sad commentary on NP Jr’s driving and his ability to contribute to the team. All this is apart from the ethics. Even if FB, PS and NP Jr all had ZERO ethics, if NP Jr was faster such a plan would not have been considered because NP Jr would be solely focussed on getting his own points if in fact he was fast enough to achieve them. Since he was not fast enough either FB and PS were able to convince him that he could “contribute” to the team by crashing or NP Jr. suggested it because he knew getting points on merit was beyond his ability.

Alonso called in to testify? It is playing as I thought it would. This really does put a cat amongst the piegeons. Joe, do drivers really follow orders blindly from the pit? As I stated in my first message, I would be VERY unhappy if called in without good reason (especially as a 2 time champ) I hoped that there would be audio of Alonso questioning the tactics. He strikes me as way too clever to simply follow orders in the manner he did. The caveat on that is IF HE KNEW something that was going on that the rest of us didn’t. The fact another engineer from renault was heard questioning the call whilst he did not adds to the case against. Ferrari have been silent, this is ominous for Alonso, thoughts?

Just read the Sunday papers ( I get them Monday here in Italy)
A bit of a story or two on FB. It failed to mention he already had a 38m Benetti before he came back from NY, oh well good luck to him.

F1 does need his type as Brundle says.
As they say, ‘He picked the right horse and rode it well’

I will be interested to see how Alonso explains his engineers race statergy?
At least the Piquet’s will be able to sue for slander both Renault and FB. Cant wait to see the deal that puts that one to bed.

Cheating, which changed the outcome of a race must be 10 times worse than 2 guys swapping proprietary data ( that may not have ever been used) so the fine will be as big as the UK’s debt so its good news the French will be paying it.